Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Coachella Valley Water District

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued its decision in the case of Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Coachella Valley Water District. The case started when the Tribe filed a court action seeking a declaration that it has a federally reserved water right to groundwater underlying the Tribe's reservation. The federal government intervened in the case and also asserted that the Tribe had a reserved right to groundwater. The case was divided into three phases, with the first phase being to determine if the Tribe has a reserved right to groundwater. In the first phase, the federal district court ruled in the Tribe's favor, and the ruling was appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

The Ninth Circuit acknowledged that under the Winters doctrine, federal reserved water rights are directly applicable to Indian reservations, but recognized that prior applications of the Winters doctrine had been only for surface water and that no court had squarely addressed the question of whether the doctrine extended to groundwater. The Court looked at the primary purposes of the reservation and extended the Winters doctrine to include groundwater. The Court noted that some reservations lack perennial streams and therefore depend on pumping groundwater for present and future survival sustainability.

 

To read the full decision, click here.

Haik v. Salt Lake City Corporation

The Utah Supreme Court recently issued its opinion in the case of Haik v. Salt Lake City Corporation. The case started nearly 20 years ago when Mark Haik filed a lawsuit in federal court against Salt Lake City. Mr. Haik asserted that Salt Lake City was required to supply water to his undeveloped property in the Albion Basin Subdivision. Mr. Haik's complaint against Salt Lake City included claims for unlawful taking and violation of equal protection. The federal court ruled against Mr. Haik, and concluded that Salt Lake City had no duty to provide water to Mr. Haik's property.

In 2012, Mr. Haik filed a second lawsuit in federal court against Salt Lake City, again seeking for the court to order Salt Lake City to provide water to his property. This lawsuit alleged different legal claims (including claims of civil conspiracy and fraud on the court), but was based on the same underlying facts as the first lawsuit. The federal court again ruled against Mr. Haik and determined that he had no claim against the City.

In 2014, Salt Lake City filed a lawsuit in state district court seeking an administrative review of State Engineer orders approving change applications related to the Albion Basin area. As part of the lawsuit, Salt Lake City also brought claims to adjudicate and quiet title to water rights in Little Cottonwood Creek, including water claimed by Mr. Haik. In response, Mr. Haik brought counterclaims against Salt Lake City that were nearly identical to the claims brought in his 2012 federal lawsuit. The district court dismissed Mr. Haik's counterclaims on the grounds that they were barred by res judicata, which is a legal principle that prohibits a party from bringing the same claims multiple times. The district court's decision was appealed to the Utah Supreme Court.

The Utah Supreme Court reviewed the principles of res judicata to determine if the district court had correctly dismissed Mr. Haik's counterclaims against Salt Lake City. The Supreme Court noted that this was not the second time, but the third time, that Mr. Haik had brought his claims against Salt Lake City. The Supreme Court noted that although some of Mr. Haik's counterclaims differed slightly from the claims he asserted in federal court, they were claims that could have been--and should have been--asserted in his federal court actions, and were therefore barred under res judicata. Mr. Haik asserted that his claims were not barred because he was bringing them as counterclaims in the state court action, rather than as direct claims as he did in his federal court actions, and that his counterclaims were necessary to mount a proper defense. The Supreme Court did not find his distinction to be persuasive (although the Supreme Court did note that a future decision may be necessary to determine if Mr. Haik will be prohibited from raising certain defenses in the state court action due to his prior federal court actions).

In the end, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Mr. Haik's counterclaims. The Supreme Court summarized its decision as follows: "'What has been will be again, and what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.' Ecclesiastes 1:9. Certainly not Mr. Haik's lawsuit."

To read the full opinion, click here.

2017 Legislative Review of Water-Related Bills

The 2017 General Session of the Utah Legislature ended on Thursday, March 9. The last day for the Governor to sign or veto bills is March 29. Here are the highlights of the water-related bills that passed and didn't pass during the session:

 

BILLS THAT PASSED

 

HB 84 - Water Law - Nonuse Requirements

Rep. Tim Hawkes

House Bill 84, which was recommended by the Executive Water Rights Task Force, clarifies that: (1) an approved nonuse application excuses the requirement of beneficial use from the nonuse application's filing date; (2) the filing or approval of a nonuse application, or a series of nonuse applications, does not constitute beneficial use or protect a water right that is already subject to forfeiture; and (3) a nonuse application does not bar a water right owner from using the water as permitted under the water right or from claiming any available defense against forfeiture. The bill also modifies the procedures for instituting a forfeiture action for nonuse.

 

HB 118 - Authority of State Engineer

Rep. Tim Hawkes

House Bill 118, which was recommended by the Executive Water Rights Task Force, allows the State Engineer to develop rules regarding the "duty of water" or in other words, a quantification of the maximum amount of water that can be beneficially used, without waste, for a particular purpose. Although the State Engineer and the courts in General Adjudications have used this concept for over 100 years, there is no statutory authority for this concept. This bill gives the State Engineer express authority to do what is already being done with respect to the duty of water.

HB 180 (2nd Sub.) – Water Right Transfer Amendments

Rep. Logan Wilde

House Bill 180 modifies Utah Code section 73-3-18 regarding assignment of an unperfected application to appropriate. If an assignment is made using the Division of Water Rights’ assignment form, and it is recorded and forwarded to the Division, the assignment will be treated as a report ofconveyance for updating title on the Division’s database.

HB 181 – State Engineer Fee Application Amendments

Rep. Logan Wilde

House Bill 181, which was recommended by the Executive Water Rights Task Force, updates the name of an "extension of time in which to resume use application" to its current name used elsewhere in the code, i.e., a "nonuse application."

HB 301 (1st Sub.) – Canal Safety Amendments

Rep. Scott D. Sandall

House Bill 301 removes a requirement that a canal owner receive notice from a municipality or county of any proposed subdivision located within 100 feet of the canal. The bill adds a more defined requirement that a municipality or county not approve or reject a subdivision that is located within 100 feet of canal until after the municipality has provided at least 20 days’ notice of the subdivision to the canal owner so that the canal owner can provide input regarding access to the canal, maintenance of the canal, canal protection, and canal safety. The bill also makes minor changes to the requirement that canal owners provide contact information and canal location information to each municipality and county in which its canal is located.

SB 11 (2nd Sub.) - Water Development Commission Amendments

Sen. Margaret Dayton

Senate Bill 11 renames the State Water Development Commission to the Legislative Water Development Commission and modifies the membership of the Commission. The bill removes all of the non-legislative, non-voting members from the Commission: the state treasurer; two representatives of the Governor's Office, including one representative from the Governor's Office of Management and Budget; nine representatives of different river districts; the executive director of the Department of Natural Resources; the executive director of the Department of Environmental Quality; the commissioner of agriculture and food; a member of the Board of Water Resources; a representative of an organized environmental group; a representative of agricultural production; and a representative with experience with finance and economics. The bill adds that non-voting members can be appointed to two-year terms by the Legislative Management Committee upon recommendation of the Commission co-chairs.

SB 45 – Retail Water Line Disclosure Amendments

Sen. Karen Mayne

Senate Bill 45 affects public entities that provide culinary water service to customers. The bill requires that twice per calendar year, these public retail water providers must provide a disclosure to its customers that states whether the property owner or the provider is responsible for repairs to the water line that serves the customer. The purpose of this requirement is to give better clarification of where the provider's responsibility for water line maintenance ends and where the property owner's responsibility for water line maintenance begins. The bill modifies Utah Code section 11-8-4, which was enacted in 2016 and requires the same disclosure for sewer service providers relative to sewer line maintenance responsibilities.

SB 63 (1st Sub.) - Nonprofit Corporation Amendments – Water Companies

Sen. Margaret Dayton

Senate Bill 63 modifies the Utah Revised Nonprofit Corporation Act to change the default rule on the transferability of shares in a water company from non-transferrable to transferrable, unless the articles or bylaws of the water company specify otherwise. The bill further specifies that any restrictions on the transfer of shares in a water company must be reasonable, adopted in good faith and for a legitimate purpose, adopted in the best interests of the water company and its shareholders, and not discriminate against any individual shareholder or class of shareholders. The bill also clarifies that a shareholder in a water company has “an equitable, beneficial interest in the use of the water supply of the water company, proportionate to the shareholder’s shares in the water company, which is an interest in real property” and has a right to receive his/her proportionate share of the company’s water. The bill also expressly allows a water company to purchase delinquent shares of stock and clarifies the process for distributions to shareholders in a water company.

 

SB 214 (1st Sub.) - Public Water Supplier Amendments

Sen. Jani Iwamoto

Senate Bill 214 originally proposed to modify Utah's instream flow statute (Section 73-3-30) to allow public water suppliers to change perfected water rights for instream use. The substituted bill acknowledged that the instream flow issue is very complex and that additional work and input from a number of stakeholders is necessary before any changes are made to the instream flow statute. The bill encourages the Water Development Commission and the Executive Water Task Force to study possible options for expanding the list of those who can file for instream flow rights.

 

SJR 11 - Joint Resolution Regarding the Central Utah Project

Sen. Curtis S. Bramble

Senate Joint Resolution 11 urges the United States Congress and the new administration to budget sufficient funds to enable the Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Project to be completed.

 

BILLS THAT DID NOT PASS

 

HB 225 – Water Commissioner Amendments

Rep. Scott Chew

House Bill 225 exempts the State Engineer from the Utah Procurement Code with respect to the Water Commissioner Fund, but requires the State Engineer to make administrative rules governing the use of the Fund. The bill also clarifies and expands the items that can be paid from the Fund, including benefits for commissioners, expenses approved by a distribution system committee, and administration expenses of a distribution system committee.

HB 304 (1st Sub.) – Water Conservation Amendments

Rep. Gage Froerer

House Bill 304 modifies water conservation plan requirements, including requiring each water conservancy district and each retail water provider to have a water conservation plan that includes goals for reduction in residential, commercial, and industrial uses, and water conservation measures for these same uses, and including landscaping. The bill also changes some recommended components of a water conservation plan into required components, such as information regarding the installation of water efficient fixtures and appliances; retail water rate structures designed to encourage conservation; and existing or proposed regulations designed to encourage conservation, including restrictions on grass landscaping.

HB 444 – Water Appropriation Modifications

Rep. Merrill F. Nelson

House Bill 444 clarifies which State divisions, departments, and entities can file applications to appropriate water. The bill adds language that these State entities must go through the same appropriation process as a private property owner would have to go through, and that the State entities have no special rights by virtue of being a public entity or public water supplier.

 

SB 228 (1st Sub.) - Water Infrastructure Revisions

Sen. J. Stuart Adams

Senate Bill 228  seeks to modify rules about loans from the Board of Water Resources, including a requirement that the Board establish a plan to require loan applicants to submit their project plans for an independent value engineering review to examine ways that the project’s value can be increased through reducing costs and improving function.

 

SB 271 - Canal and Ditch Modifications

Sen. David P. Hinkins

Senate Bill 271 seeks to allow a property owner whose land is crossed by a canal, ditch, drain, or “buried irrigation conduit” to change the location of the canal, ditch, drain, or “buried irrigation conduit,” subject to several requirements and limitations. The property owner must provide written notice to the water owner, including detailed plans and specifications prepared by a licenses engineer. The property owner must provide contact information for two other engineers to independently review the plans and specifications, and must pay for the cost of this independent review if the water owner elects to use one of the two engineers suggested by the property owner. Alternatively, the water owner can select its own independent engineer, but is responsible for paying the costs incurred for this independent review. The property owner and water owner must negotiate terms regarding any restrictions or impediments to the flow of water through the water channel. This bill would not allow for culinary water lines or secondary water lines to be moved.